In a message dated 4/15/01 12:00:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
jsd@MONMOUTH.COM writes:
<< My point was that Mach's principle may or may not lead us to this deeper
understanding. My guess is "not", for several reasons, as previously stated.
And let me add that AFAIK, Mach's principle makes no falsifiable
predictions. So there's really no need to discuss it. Or am I missing
something?
>>
I wasn't attempting to be an advocate of Mach's principal. I just think a
deeper understanding of inertia is maybe possible and perhaps a path into
physics beyond the standard model. Of course you are correct, Mach's
principal is more a philosophic position than a falsifible theory. I don't
dispute your points, but I believe it may be possible to have a valid theory
which does a better job of dealing with inertia. Nevertheless all any
physical theory can do is establish the relationships between what we can
observe. Any deeper insights is the realm of Philosophy for those who think
metaphysical questions have any meaning.